Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: why was libpq.so's version number bumped?

From: Dan Langille <dan(at)langille(dot)org>
To: Palle Girgensohn <girgen(at)pingpong(dot)net>
Cc: Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au>,<pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: why was libpq.so's version number bumped?
Date: 2002-12-30 12:34:23
Message-ID: 20021230072851.J47916-100000@m20.unixathome.org (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Mon, 30 Dec 2002, Palle Girgensohn wrote:

> --On måndag, december 30, 2002 06.35.22 -0500 Dan Langille
> <dan(at)langille(dot)org> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 30 Dec 2002, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
> >
> >> ps. Why is Postgres 7.3 still in ports/databases/postgresql-devel ??
> >
> > I forgot one other possible answer: perhaps the port maintainer is taking
> > a well deserved holiday?
>
> :)  Well, not really, it is because of the port freeze. I don't maintain
> the -devel port, Sean Chittenden does. It seems logical that he maintains
> it, since he has commit rights to the ports tree. It was used during
> postgresql's beta phase, and it will be removed after the port freeze, only
> to resurrect at the next beta phase. This is the plan, anyway. :)

I liked and used the -devel port.  I think the concept should be retained.

> > Since going from 7.2 to 7.3 is a significant upgrade, the FreeBSD guys
> > would probablyu be right tho to refuse such a major upgrade...  Still,
> > it's a pity though.  Postgres 7.3 has been tested and works fine on
> > FreeBSD 5.
>
> True, perhaps, but if the old version has security flaws... Also, since 5.0
> is a new major version for FreeBSD, most binaries need relinking to fully
> utilize the new system - wouldn't it be clever to have the new postgres
> libpq relinked at the same time as well...?

What about the other 8000 or so ports?  Should we halt FreeBSD development
so they all have the latest version as well?  I think not. At some point,
a line must be drawn.

> --On måndag, december 30, 2002 06.24.38 -0500 Dan Langille
> <dan(at)langille(dot)org> wrote:
> >
> > If anything, the ports tree on the CD will contain a reference to 7.2.3.
> > PostgreSQL itself is not shipped.  The ports tree can be cvsup'd to the
> > latest, when the cvs repository is updated.  At present there is a ports
> > freeze.  This is the normal situation just prior to a major release.
>
> Well, on the DVD or four-disk-set, there will be a package of 7.2.3, so in
> a way, postgreSQL is actually shipped...

Given that there are almost 8000 ports, it is simply not practical to hold
everything up while we get the latest of everything.  Exceptions are
allowed, but again, I don't have a problem with it.

> Well, we'll see. 7.3 has been in gnats for some time now. I'll send in the
> new 7.3.1 and send a few emails lobbying for it, and let the guys
> responsible decide if it a pre- or post-5.0 port...

I don't see it as a big deal.  It's just a ports tree entry going out with
5.  That entry can be cvsup'd and updated to the latest and greatest.


In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tara PiorkowskiDate: 2002-12-30 16:09:55
Subject: Bug in Dependencies Code in 7.3.x?
Previous:From: Palle GirgensohnDate: 2002-12-30 12:01:06
Subject: Re: why was libpq.so's version number bumped?

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group